So, Barack Obama gets into his second term as US president. Iran was quick to absorb it by saying it would be good for the the country, hoping US will see the logic in its 'nuclear-for-power' program while Israel was a bit skeptical over Washington's dealing with Teheran.

However, Obama is 'accepted' well worldwide. Even the Cubans see him as a moderate 'leader of the imperialist' while in Teheran, some joys were observed when he was announced winner against Mitt Romney.

However, what does the win mean for the Middle East when Obama and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu get more 'intimately' involved in prospering Tel Aviv regime and orchestrating falsified effort to free the Palestinians?

Obama's re-election victory represents an important vindication of his approach to Iran and its potential nuclear ambitions – and, for the world, a new face of American policy in the Middle East that will relegate the aggressive policies of George W. Bush into the distant past.

For all of his well-worn criticisms of Obama's Iran policy as insufficiently bellicose and too reliant on diplomacy rather than military threats to bring Iran into line, Romney never really offered much of an alternative – beyond his insistence that he could create a better outcome by speaking in a louder voice, and the clear implication that he would be more willing to use force against Iran's nuclear facilities.

His Administration's attempted 'reset' with Russia, too, was essentially stillborn, while its 'pivot to Asia' has been more a feature of rhetoric than a measurable strategic shift.

Rather than set the agenda, Obama has largely found himself forced to react to crises in the Middle East and the Afghanistan-Pakistan sphere, managing the challenges of extricating US troops from the Hindu Kush and relying on drone strikes to kill off the US enemies there and also in Yemen; averting the dangers posed by the standoff over Iran's nuclear program by building sanctions pressure on Teheran, and formulating a response to an Arab rebellion that swept aside longstanding US allies and empowered Islamists in their wake.

His administration developed a form of limited military engagement that relied on others to undertake the heavy lifting - known by the ghastly term 'leading from behind' - to help bring down Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, although the killing of four US diplomatic personnel in Benghazi on Sept 11 highlights the fragility of the resulting order.

More recently, the Obama White House has struggled to find similarly low-cost policy levers that could break Syria's bloody stalemate by ousting President Bashar Assad.

A foreign-policy legacy may not seem the obvious pathway for Obama to pursue given the limits on American power within which he operates. And he's clearly mindful of the reality that any restoration of US global fortunes depends first and foremost on repairing the domestic economy.

In Bali, Indonesia, Iran president Ahmadinejad who was attending the two-day Democracy Forum which also saw participation by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, criticised the situation in Europe and the US.

"An election, which is one of the manifestations of the people's will, has become a battleground for the capitalists, and an excuse for hefty spending," he said.

An estimated US$6 billion was spent in US federal races, making the 2012 general election the most expensive poll in American history, experts have said.

Ahmadinejad, who did not comment directly on Obama's victory over his Republican rival Mitt Romney, added that "democracy has turned into the rule of a minority over the majority".

He said problems continued "even in countries who claim to be the forerunners of democracy".

"Slavery, colonialism and rights abuses continue to be imposed on human beings," he said, without singling out any countries in particular for criticism.

Romney frequently accused Obama of taking too soft a line toward Teheran, saying Iran today has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability, and that it has never acted less deterred by America.

Now, the question is how much he has been stung by such criticism? Will Obama retain confidence in his dual strategy of squeezing Iran with economic sanctions while also extending offers of rapprochement? Or will the fact that Iran keeps building centrifuges and enriching uranium despite Obama's efforts persuade the White House it needs to try something new?

Perhaps the greatest and most immediate foreign policy crisis Obama must confront in his second term is the civil war in Syria, which threatens to spill into neighboring states.

The US need to make Syria a priority, and it has to do more to try solve the crisis.

In the Middle East and elsewhere, Obama does not want another war with a Muslim country, even if he is cheered on by Arab leaders in the region who want Iran's program destroyed.

He fears a backlash by Muslims in the street, the prospect of increased terror against the United States, the possibility of delaying rather than destroying Iran's program and the chance of being forced to use ground troops that could get mired in another long war.

He also fears that war will cause a spike in oil prices that will doom his program for economic recovery.

If Obama does not attack Iran and Israel feels forced to defend itself from what it sees as an existential threat, the US may face many of the same consequences. Much, of course, depends on the success of any operation, but Obama officials have been warning for months of the potential negative repercussions for US interests of a unilateral Israeli attack.

On a broader scale, Obama has to develop a vision for future relations with the Arab world. His first term policy was neither idealist nor realist; he had no ideology or world view shaping his policies and made ad hoc decisions to address each crisis.

In his second term, he will need to decide if he supports democracy for the region. If so, he will have to distinguish between democratic processes, such as elections, and democratic outcomes that lead to freedom for Arab citizens and the protection of their human rights.

And from now on, he can expect more 'harrowing' moment in managing US foreign policy.

I have a strange, unbelievable dream as I never think that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi would never give-up her Noble Peace Prize even if she really understand and accept that she is not worthy of that Prize given to her just as a catalyst to accelerate or pressure the democratic change in Burma. But as this is a dream and is similar to one of her most famous speech, I just posted as a SATAIRE.

(Her words in italics and mine normal fonts some are in the brackets and in brown colour in my blog.)

Following is the full text: Suu Kyi's giving back of the Nobel Prize speech

When the Nobel Committee(wrongly) awarded the Peace Prize to me they were recognizing that the oppressed and the isolated in Burma were also a part of the world, they were recognizing the oneness of humanity. (But) for me receiving the Nobel Peace Prize (does not)mean personally extending my concerns for democracy and human rights beyond national borders. The Nobel Peace Prize (failed to) open up a door in my heart.

Fires of suffering and strife are raging around the world. In my own country, hostilities have not ceased in the far north; to the west, communal violence resulting in arson and murder were taking place just several days before I started out on the journey that has brought me here today. News of atrocities in other reaches of the earth abound.

Reports of hunger, disease, displacement, joblessness, poverty, injustice, discrimination, prejudice, bigotry; these are our daily fare. Everywhere there are negative forces eating away at the foundations of peace. Everywhere can be found thoughtless dissipation of material and human resources that are necessary for the conservation of harmony and happiness in our world.

But I am not only scared to stand by the oppressed or tortured people but even telling the truth because my supporters are brainwashed and are highly charged with Ultra-Nationalistic spirit. Once I reveal the truth and defend the oppressed people, I would be abandoned and I am sure my NLD and I would suffer the heavy loss in the next election in 2015. Bama Military is very clever and had successfully set a trap. Sorry I cannot speak up nor do the right thing as I am eager to be a next President of Burma.

I am suffering from one variant of corruption: moga-gati, i.e. aberration due to ignorance and bhaya-gati: fear, stifle and slowly destroy all sense of right and wrong

It is not power that corrupts but fear.

Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.

Most Burmese are familiar with the four a-gati, the four kinds of corruption.

Chanda-gati, corruption induced by desire, is deviation from the right path in pursuit of bribes or for the sake of those one loves. I wish to be a President and most of my followers are blinded with Nationalism.

Dosa-gati is taking the wrong path to spite those against whom one bears ill will, and

Moga-gati is aberration due to ignorance. I am also suffering this as intentionally pretending not to know the cause and history of the Rakhine conflict.

But perhaps the worst of the four is bhaya-gati, for not only does bhaya, fear, stifle and slowly destroy all sense of right and wrong, it so often lies at the root of the other three kinds of corruption. I have to admit that if I stand by the Human Rights and Moral Issues my people would be angry a dump me or the military generals would put me into detention again.

Just as chanda-gati, when not the result of sheer avarice, can be caused by fear of want or fear of losing the goodwill of those one loves, so fear of being surpassed, humiliated or injured (me) in some way can provide the impetus for ill will.

And it would be difficult (for me) to dispel ignorance unless there is freedom to pursue the truth unfettered by (my) fear.

With so close a relationship between fear and corruption it is little wonder that in any society where fear is rife, corruption in all forms becomes deeply entrenched (in me).

But it was more than the difficulties of eking out a barely acceptable standard of living that had eroded the patience of a traditionally good-natured, quiescent people – it was also the humiliation of a way of life disfigured by corruption and fear (in me).

The XXX (Muslims) were protesting not just against the death of their comrades but against the denial of their right to life by a totalitarian regime which deprived the present of meaningfulness and held out no hope for the future.

But their affluence offered them no genuine sense of security or fulfillment, and they could not but see that if they and their fellow citizens, regardless of economic status, were to achieve a worthwhile existence, an accountable administration was at least a necessary if not a sufficient condition. The people of Burma had wearied of a precarious state of passive apprehension where they were 'as water in the cupped hands' of the powers that be.

Emerald cool we may be_As water in cupped hands_But oh that we might be_As splinters of glass_In cupped hands.

Glass splinters, the smallest with its sharp, glinting power to defend itself against hands that try to crush, could be seen as a vivid symbol of the spark of courage that is an essential attribute of those who would free themselves from the grip of oppression.

Bogyoke Aung San exhorted the people to develop courage: 'Don't just depend on the courage and intrepidity of others. Each and every one of you must make sacrifices to become a hero possessed of courage and intrepidity. Then only shall we all be able to enjoy true freedom.'

The effort necessary to remain uncorrupted in an environment where fear is an integral part of everyday existence is not immediately apparent to those fortunate enough to live in states governed by the rule of law. Just laws do not merely prevent corruption by meting out impartial punishment to offenders. They also help to create a society in which people can fulfil the basic requirements necessary for the preservation of human dignity without recourse to corrupt practices.

The burden of upholding the principles of justice and common decency falls on the ordinary people. It is the cumulative effect on their sustained effort and steady endurance which will change a nation where reason and conscience are warped by fear into one where legal rules exist to promote man's desire for harmony and justice while restraining the less desirable destructive traits in his nature.

When immense lethal weapons which are used by the powerful and the unprincipled to dominate the weak and the helpless, there is a compelling need for a closer relationship between politics and ethics at both the national and international levels, which I cannot do.

I cannot absolutely acceptThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations proclaims that 'every individual and every organ of society' should strive to promote the basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings regardless of race, nationality or religion are entitled.

But as long as there are governments whose authority is founded on coercion rather than on the mandate of the people, and interest groups (like NLD headed by me) which place short-term profits above long-term peace and prosperity, concerted international action to protect and promote human rights will remain at best a partially realized struggle.

There will continue to be arenas of struggle where victims of oppression have to draw on their own inner resources to defend their inalienable rights as members of the human family.

The quintessential revolution is that of the spirit, born of an intellectual conviction of the need for change in those mental attitudes and values which shape the course of a nation's development.

A revolution which aims merely at changing official policies and institutions with a view to an improvement in material conditions has little chance of genuine success.

Without a revolution of the spirit (e.g. DASSK), the forces which produced the iniquities of the old order would continue to be operative, posing a constant threat to the process of reform and regeneration.

It is no need to always call for freedom, democracy and human rights. I don't believe to have aunited determination to persevere in the struggle, to make sacrifices in the name of enduring truths, to resist the corrupting influences of desire, ill will, ignorance and fear (which I am having now).

Saints, it has been said, are the sinners who go on trying.

So free men (look I am just a lady and not totally free from the influences of Military Rulers)are the oppressed who go on trying and who in the process make themselves (not myself) fit to bear the responsibilities and to uphold the disciplines which will maintain a free society.

Among the basic freedoms to which men aspire that their lives might be full and uncramped, freedom from fear (I am now scared) stands out as both a means and an end.

A people who would build a nation in which strong, democratic institutions are firmly established as a guarantee against state-induced power (sorry, it could not apply for the Bengali Invaders) must first learn to liberate their own minds (but I cannot) from apathy and fear.

Always one to practice what he preached, Aung San himself constantly demonstrated courage (but I am not Aung San but his weak daughter only) - not just the physical sort but the kind that enabled him to speak the truth (I still don't know the cause of Riots even afterfive months), to stand by his word, (I am not going to stand by my word) to accept criticism (I and NLD would not accept criticism) , to admit his faults (I won't admit my faults), to correct his mistakes (I am not correcting my mistakes), to respect the opposition, to parley with the enemy and to let people (but I dare not let the people) be the judge of his worthiness as a leader.

It is for such moral courage (I have NO MORAL COURAGE) that he will always be loved and respected in Burma – not merely as a warrior hero but as the inspiration and conscience of the nation. The words used by Jawaharlal Nehru to describe Mahatma Gandhi could well be applied to Aung San:

'The essence of his teaching was fearlessness and truth, and action (my actions are different) allied to these, always keeping the welfare of the masses (for me not to offend Buddhist masses but Muslim masses need not deserve care) in view.'

Gandhi, that great apostle of non-violence, and Aung San, the founder of a national army, were very different personalities (from me! See because of that both of them were assassinated but I am still surviving), but as there is an inevitable sameness about the challenges of authoritarian rule anywhere at any time, so there is a similarity in the intrinsic qualities of those who rise up to meet the challenge. Nehru, who considered the instillation of courage in the people of India one of Gandhi's greatest achievements, was a political modernist, but as he assessed the needs for a twentieth-century movement for independence, he found himself looking back to the philosophy of ancient India: 'The greatest gift for an individual or a nation. .. was abhaya, fearlessness, not merely bodily courage but absence of fear from the mind (But I have an absence of courage in my mind).'

Fearlessness may be a gift but perhaps more precious is the courage acquired through endeavour, courage that comes from cultivating the habit of refusing to let fear dictate one's actions (but I cannot), courage that could be described as 'grace under pressure' (for be the eloquent Silence under pressure)- grace which is renewed repeatedly in the face of harsh, unremitting pressure.

Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day. Fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear of death, fear of losing friends (Look…I have fear of losing Patriotic Bama and Buddhists friends), family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation (me 2), fear of failure.

A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve man's self-respect and inherent human dignity (I am just a weak woman).

It is not easy for a people (me 2) conditioned by fear under the iron rule of the principle that might is right to free themselves from the enervating miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing state machinery courage rises up again and again, for fear is not the natural state of civilized man. (But I am afraid.)

The wellspring of courage and endurance in the face of unbridled power is generally a firm belief (I don't know) in the sanctity of ethical principles combined with a historical sense (I don't know the history of Rohingya) that despite all setbacks the condition of man is set on an ultimate course for both spiritual and material advancement.

It is his (not me) capacity for self-improvement and self-redemption which most distinguishes man from the mere brute like me.

At the root of human responsibility is the concept of perfection, the urge to achieve it, the intelligence (I don't know the truth and the cause of conflict even after 5 months)to find a path towards it (I am lost),and the will to follow that path (I don't even want to) if not to the end at least the distance needed to rise above individual limitations and environmental impediments.

It is man's vision (not a lady's vision) of a world fit for rational, civilized humanity which leads him (not me) to dare and to suffer to build societies free from want and fear.

Concepts such as truth, justice (no need Justice for Muslim Bengali invaders) and compassion (why?) cannot be dismissed as trite when these are often the only bulwarks which stand against ruthless power (ironically I want to poses after 2015 election).

So I hereby give back your worthless powerless Peace Prize so that I could become the First Civilian Women President of Myanmar. (FYI I just changed my mind to call our country, Myanmar)

After a two-month battle to have the road hump outside my house removed, I can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Encik Jamali, the Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya (MPAJ) engineer who oversaw the construction, came over to discuss a resolution to my complaint.

This came about just two days after the news of my complaint was published in The Star on 6 November. Berita Harian ran a similar article in 19 October. My neighbours and I also submitted an appeal letter to the Yang DiPertua Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya Dato' Mohammad Bin Yacob on 28 October asking for his intervention in this matter.

Together with two other affected neighbours, we invited MCA Pandan Division Head of Legal Bureau Gary Lim to join in the meeting as he has been pursuing this matter with MPAJ on our behalf after we were given the cold shoulder by people whom we went to seek help from. Gary was stuck in a traffic jam at the Federal Highway due to the heavy rain and could not make it. His assistant came in his place.

Encik Jamali apologised on behalf of MPAJ for causing the inconvenience to me. I told him that I was glad he came to see for himself the problems we have been facing and that we hope to resolve the matter amicably. He proposed paving a path with interlocking blocks on the strip of land beside the hump as a by-pass.

We rejected the proposal as the pavement will invite other neighbours to park their cars on it and we will be back to square one with me having to traverse the hump again. Moreover, the hump is blocking the flow of rainwater down the road. The heavy rain prior to the meeting had caused a large puddle of water to form on the opposite neighbours' driveway. They have had to suffer this problem each time it rained after the construction of the hump.

We told Encik Jamali that as far as we, the residents of the three houses facing the hump, are concerned, we want it removed. And if MPAJ wants to rebuild it further down the road, we advised him to seek the consent of the house owners and residents affected to avoid another discontent from arising.

Encik Jamali agreed that the procedure for building road humps as practised by the Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Prai (MPSP) is a good one. I had attached the MPSP flyer on the requirements for applications of road humps to the appeal letter to the Yang DiPertua earlier. Applications must be submitted with letters of consent from property owners of houses where the hump is to be constructed and signatures from four house facing the hump. He said that MPAJ will come out with a similar procedure for future applications of road humps in residential areas in the municipality.

We also pointed out to him that we know residents along the road were asked to sign a petition in support of the hump after it was built and that was not right. MPAJ and ahli majlis Dorothy Cheong had said that the requests were made in July by many residents. The road hump was built on 12 September while the petition was signed twelve days later on 24 September. He just smiled.

After further discussion, he agreed to remove the road hump. I asked for a time frame. He told us to give him two weeks. We agreed. He said he will report to his superiors regarding this new development. I truly want to believe Encik Jamali's words but I will keep my fingers crossed until the road hump is removed once and for all.

Gary called his assistant to check on the outcome of the meeting a short while after Encik Jamali left. He said that he will continue follow up on the case until the matter is resolved. The neighbours, Wuan and I appreciate Gary's effort in pursuing this matter on our behalf. At the very least, he was willing to listen to our grouses and made attempts to assist us.

I was given the run around when I first filed a complaint with MPAJ. Likewise, when I sought the assistance from ADUN for Teratai Jenice Lee to resolve this matter, she got ahli majlis MPAJ Dorothy Cheong to look into it. The latter did not bother to understand the hardship that "people of my situation" have to face after the hump was built and kept telling me that a majority of ten residents have requested for it and took no further action.

Dorothy Cheong's arrogance in belittling my complaint is regrettable She was reported by The Star to have said that "We can't entertain one person's complaint as we want to help everyone". It is noble of her to want to help everyone but her disregard for the rights of the minority is most contemptible.

I am absolutely convinced that my complaint is valid. The hump affects my right to access to public facilities under the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008. Members of Parliament, State Assembly Members and municipal councillors should be educated on disability and minority equality before they are allowed to take office. This is to ensure they serve with fairness and equity. In the meantime, I await the removal of the hump with bated breath.

Once upon a time, there was a bear that lived in a forest. Being a smart bear, he knew that when the leaves fell and the geese flew west it was time to go into a cave and hibernate. This he did.

While he was hibernating, builders came and built a huge factory right over the bear's cave so that when he woke up, he found himself standing in the middle of a factory. The foreman came up to him. 'Hey you,' he said, 'get back to work!'

'But I'm a bear,' said the bear.

'No, you're not,' replied the foreman. 'You're a silly man who needs a shave and wears a fur coat.'

'But I'm a bear,' said the bear.

So the foreman took the bear to the undermanager, who told him to get back to work.

'But I'm a bear,' said the bear.

'No, you're not,' said the undermanager. 'You're a silly man who needs a shave and wears a fur coat.'

So the bear carried on protesting and was taken up through each level of the hierarchy, where everyone told him that he was a silly man who needed a shave and wore a fur coat. Eventually, as he continued to protest, he was taken to the zoo and to the circus to argue his case with 'real' bears. They said, 'He can't be a bear because if he were, he would be in this cage with us. He is just a silly man who needs a shave and wears a fur coat.'

And so the bear gave up and said to himself, 'Perhaps I am what they keep telling me I am.'

So he was put to work on a machine and was miserable.

After a long time, the factory closedand all the other workers went elsewhere. The bear was left standing outside in the cold. He looked up. The leaves were blowing off the trees and the wild geese were flying west. Something deep within him told him that it was time to find a nice warm cave and to hibernate.

But I can't do that,' he said to himself, 'because I'm not a bear. I'm just a silly man who needs a shave and wears a fur coat.' So he sat outside in the cold, the snow fell and he began slowly to freeze to death.

Finally, he saw sense. 'Who cares what it is they tell me I am? If I were a bear, I could go into that cave over there and be happy and warm – and I want to be happy and warm.' So he went into the cave.

As he happily settled down to hibernate, he realised that he was not a silly man who needed a shave and wore a fur coat – he was a real bear. And he was not a silly bear either!

The moral of this story is that we all too often believe what other people tell us we are, or ought to be. True happiness lies in discovering for ourselves what we really are – and then being it.

I refer to Azril Mohd Amin's letter On the Islamic State last week. While it is pretty obvious and readers have been quick to point out that the guy betrays his BN-friendly sentiments, and offers no substantive arguments over what is basically opinionated factoids, I would like to point out just several issues points he raised that should be rebutted.

Firstly on the subject of Indonesia's secularism, Azril writes as if the Indonesians, all the hundreds of millions of them, are of the same mind on the matter. Well, I happen to know a fair number of Indonesians who would disagree with Azril's take on the republic's secularism. They have often expressed to me their disdain for the Islamists who try to force their values on them, and value the freedom of religion that they, Muslims themselves, presently enjoy.

One friend from Indonesia once told me the fundamentalists were "a joke" while others have in their own way expressed their general antipathy for Islamists in their midst who are trying to press home their religious agenda. Another found Malaysia's official Islamic zeal amusing. These are Indonesian Muslims I am talking about.

And I would think their opinions, as citizens of the nation, should be every bit as valid as that of other Indonesians who might think like Azril. And I am sure unlike Azril, my friends do not find that Muslims having to take care that they do not "offend" fellow non-Muslim Indonesians isn't such an outlandish concept.

For a majority group to look after the interests of someone other than themselves may be an alien concept to this lawyer, but consider this - in Singapore, when there is an event, it has become common practice for organisers to cater halal food just in case any of the guests might be Muslim.

Secondly the writer's condescending attitude towards the basic human rights of gays (Azril: "...demands for legal and public recognition") as merely a "secular aspects of western liberalisation" is another empty sweeping statement often repeated without any basis whatsoever, the usual style of such commentors.

Without going into argument over the matter as it has been argued to death here, I'd just like to point out the demand of a Malaysian citizen for basic rights is neither a "western" concept nor a "liberal" one, just a humane and an equitable one.

Humane because LGBTs (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender) are humans just like the writer, and equitable because they are citizens and taxpayers just like the writer, and stand undifferentiated from the writer in the eyes of our constitution.

Finally, other than mouthing what sounds like BN-like propaganda about the fantasy Islamic utopia that Malaysia presently is (Azril: "A large part of Malaysia's recent successes in the modern world are due to government support of Islamic style and practice..."), let me burst the bubble of bliss with just a few examples to the contrary starting from the most recent.

Just close your eyes and point to any report: the recent slapping of the Orang Asli kids in Kelantan and similarly abusive teachers cases last year, the banning of Irshad Manji's book and the judicial shenanigans that are playing out over the matter, the fake 'Christian conspiracies' from the likes of Hasan Ali and Utusan Malaysia, the countless bodysnatching cases through the decades from that poor Indian man in Negri Sembilan to the famous mountain climber's case.Or S Banggarma's case where a grown-up can't even decide her own religion, the numerous child custody cases, the caning of the beer drinking girl, Lina Joy's case ...

And what of the thorny Al Kitab and the use of the term 'Allah' for Christians issue? Surely the government is displaying utmost bad faith in appealing the ruling that the judiciary has already made, one that in my mind and in that of many Malaysians, is a just ruling fit for multireligious Malaysia.

And of course the burning of churches, cows' heads at Hindu temples, and the list goes on.

And while our friend is touting Malaysia as the model Islamic nation, I would ask what kind of model are we when we are tottering on the brink of economic and social collapse, with a country rife in corruption and crime and economically crippled?

Azril must be either blind, or just a sycophant and self-deluder. Well, live in your fantasy world, suck up to the powers that be, while the future of your children and their children lie at the brink of oblivion because of apologists such as yourself. Malaysiakini